June 20, 2012

“Our purpose has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt,” Mr. Issa said. “Our purpose has always been to get the information the committee needs to complete its work — that it is not only entitled to, but obligated to do.”...

“I treat assertions of executive privilege very seriously, and I believe they should be used only sparingly,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the panel's ranking Democrat. “In this case, it seems clear that the administration was forced into this position by the committee’s unreasonable insistence on pressing forward with contempt despite the attorney general’s good faith offer.”

Safekeeping: that's Obama 1, and Dubya...how many, again? I get confused trying to add up the ones in one month plus the ones he spread around. And the ones that were like secondary claims. I never was much good at higher math.

It's not like the 53% of American voters who voted for Obama are likely to give a shit.

After all, the media could report Obama asked the Russians to lay off until after the elections, or that the unemployment rate has been steadily inching up, or that American households lost 40% of net wealth over the last four years, or that the president could unilaterally waive off enforcing immigration laws, and it would have practically no discernible effect on the president's poll numbers.

Why should they fear reporting the Administration ran an illegal program to deliver guns to warring drug cartels in Mexico that, collaterally, killed two American agents have any effect on the president's re-election chances?

The Democrats will be obliged to defend their opposition to an action which is far more appropriate than their pursuit of Rove and Harriet Miers, which concerned a totally legal action to dismiss US attorneys who serve at the president's pleasure.

They should know what is political.

I think every Republican running for Congress this fall will use this.

I'm seeing option 3 there as the most likely; lawsuit and the court decides if the EP invocation stands up.

Leslyn: Does it matter how many times EP is/was invoked by whom?

Sometimes it might well be right to do so, as the Court pointed out in Nixon. Sometimes it might be wrong or invalid, as also in Nixon.

What matters is... whether it's valid in this case or not, not "The Previous President did it more!"

(That said, I don't see how this is going to work out well for the President; for an EP claim to stand a challenge in court he'll have to claim either that specific documents being revealed would imperil the ability of his AG to advise him*, or that there's a significant national security implication**.

* Which would implicate the President in the fiasco, so I doubt he'd want to go there.

[Contra others, I don't think this invocation implicates him now, as back to Eisenhower we find it asserted for Executive Branch members talking to each-other, without the President's involvement.]

** Which would be better explained by a national security claim than straight EP - plus would be easily countered by Congress saying "Fine, we'll let only Congressmen with clearances look", because Congress gets oversight even on national security issues.)

Safekeeping: that's Obama 1, and Dubya...how many, again? I get confused trying to add up the ones in one month plus the ones he spread around. And the ones that were like secondary claims. I never was much good at higher math.

Our gov needs to be much more transparent. Unless something is a military or foreign affairs secret, everything should be open. All communications (with some national security exceptions) by the gov (including executive, judicial, and legislative branches) should be recorded and available to the public. This would cut way down on the corruption and criminality by the feds.

Obviously even the msm (i.e. dem propagandists) will now be forced to cover Fast and Furious. Obama is an idiot if he doesn't get rid of Holder.

The idea that the GOP should only attack Obama on the economy and not attack his other vulnerabilities makes no sense. What motivates voters varies from voter to voter, there is no one single approach that will be optimal for each voter.

Judges throw citizens in jail for contempt all the time. They act as judge, jury, executioner. Off to jail!

It's so common you wouldn't believe it.

In fact you might argue that unelected people (judges) are far more inclined than elected officials to use force. That's the sort of argument that Hitler and Mussolini made about Churchill and Roosevelt. Democracies are weak and unwilling to fight.

Are we?

In 1935, what the Congress did when there was contempt of Congress by the executive branch was to throw the fucker in jail.

Good questions. If the requested docs just make Holder look bad, the obvious play would be to throw him under the bus and move on. Why would Obama drag this out unnecessarily when it is embarrassing and hurting his campaign? Maybe it is because he was aware of the Fast and Furious program before it blew up in the media.

I can't believe those balless wonder Democrats in the House! That the Asshole in Chief has them so snowed that they vote to allow him to get away with not responding to a subpoena by invoking EP.

Note to House Democrats: The separation of powers exists for a reason. You do not let the Executive --- ANY Executive --- tell you what you can and cannot see. You make the laws & pay the bills. Protect your prerogatives! That's the whole point of the system!

The argument seems to be that "Tea Party Crybabies" or maybe just the Republicans, who knows, at first is was the gun rights people, are fussing over nothing at all.

And because this is so much nothing at all, the proper response is to refuse to cooperate?

Promise transparency in government and then refuse to cooperate in an investigation that is over nothing much, about nothing much, and will reveal nothing much *because* it's nothing much.

If, and I do say IF, the gun walker thing had any use or utility as a method to track where guns go and who has them, it was destroyed when the Obama administration decided and promised to push for gun control legislation in response to US guns in Mexico.

What do they call that? A self goal?

In any case, the *utility* of the program is not threatened by the investigation which is no longer in the least bit covert.

So give congress what they have the right, for any piddling stupid reason they decide they want them, to request.

I was never completely comfortable with Bush's use of executive privilege, but at least he had the excuse of national security. What executive branch power is Obama protecting from Congressional usurpation here?

"There really is no conspiracy theory too stupid for conservatives, is there?"

Remember the outrage over the failure to "connect the dots" leading up to 9/11/01? Now you want to bitch about dot-connecting? I actually believed that Obama's "under the radar" remark wasn't referring to F&F, but now he's pulled EP. When the dots have numbers, only fools or liars fail to connect them.

"There aren't enough gun murders in the U.S. already they could have just pointed to?"

You'd think so, right?

But why wouldn't they bring up the guns in Mexico? That's frosting on the cake. Frosting is yummy.

No, I don't think this was a plan plotted with malice beforehand, though I know that some people do. I think it was opportunism that turned around and bit them in the butt.

I also think that what is being hidden is communications about the opportunism after the fact.

In any case, the anti-gun plans, opportunistic or not, are toast.

That doesn't excuse a domestic agency in the US shipping guns into the hands of Mexican cartels without the knowledge or cooperation of the Mexican government. And it doesn't excuse the obstruction of a Congressional investigation.

There really is no conspiracy theory too stupid for conservatives, is there?

Yawn. Go back to entertaining us with the story about how "Bush Lied!!!! about WMD!!!"

Or the story about how Bush's daddy pulled strings to get him in the TANG.

Or any of the hundreds of other nutjob theories the left masturbated to while Bush was in office.

In contrast to the lefty conspiracy theories, we know that something bad happened in F+F. We don't know how high the blame goes, and Holder and Obama are determined that we not find out. But that government fucked up and people died as a result is not open to debate.

I think this is great. Whatever is in those files is likely to not be much worse than the way the most transparent administration in history is acting. It's a great thing for the GOP to have these guy acting like criminals in front of everyone. Whatever the real story is, the media would drop it very quickly. This will keep it up front till the election.

Obama obviously is hiding something or he would just release the docs that demonstrate this is much ado about nothing. Invoking executive privilege is rare and should be done only to preserve national security, not to avoid political embarrassment (ala Bill Clinton).

Whatever the real story is, the media would drop it very quickly. This will keep it up front till the election.

Yep. Whatever the truth is, the Republicans are timing it just about perfectly to do maximum damage to Obama's reelection campaign. Obama is playing along, too, which makes me think there really is something pretty embarrassing at the bottom of all this.

The Operation Wide Reciever tried under Bush failed. But it was similar to a weakened live virus vaccine being tested on a small control group and failing and then shut down.

Then Obama's LaLa Land Gang of UN Internationalists concieved of a way to pretend it was more of the same, but it became similar to a mass immunisation using the most virulent strain of the virus and all along intended to be a total failure... except that the mass deaths could be be blamed on the American virus manufacturers who would then be closed down for killimng innocent Mexicans.

Terry's death was not intended at all, but it blew the cover story and stopped the Cabal short of success.

That is what must be hidden.

If Holder says that it is nothing but human error, then he would simply fire/promote a man or two and endure a mild embarrassment.

The way he is going to the mat proves that he is protecting the higher ups from a exposure of their true motives.

If you chose not to believe their is any such sly manipulation endemic to UN and Marxist revolutionary circles, then that choice is very naive.

Alberto Gonzales was harassed by the press and democrat lawmakers because he exercised his right to fire subordinate and maybe even insubordinate lawyers on his staff. Special counsel threats and the whole nine yards were tossed about for what seems like daily and forever.

It all seems so tame now, when compared to Fast and Furious and the deliberate lying by General Holder to Issa's committee.

Obama: No one can see the documents - they're protected by Executive Privilege.

So, the president says the documents Holder was willing to show can't be seen, because they're special.

So, who's right?

Obama? If so, his AG doesn't appreciate the import of the documents related to Fast & Furious, i.e., the AG is incompetent and was willing to show documents he never had reason or authority to share with Congress.

Holder? If so, it seems his was a gambit - that a quick, cursory review, but no transfer of possession to the Issa committee - would satisfy the political problem while making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Issa committee to find (let alone keep and distribute) incriminating evidence.

Regardless, Obama has raised the stakes. Whether this was necessary (to cover up a crime) or not (gettin' pissy with the House Reps), time will tell.

I still don't think it registers with the 53% who voted for Obama. That kind of stupidity makes one immune to abuses of power.

I have not understood what there was about "Fast & Furious" that could possibly be worth the stonewalling the Justice Department already put up, and raising the ante by claiming Executive Privilege is absolutely beyond me. There has to be something else here than just some screw-up shenanigans by low-level ATF agents.

There is not time left in this administration to find out what and get the situation resolved, but we sure are going to have an interesting campaign season ahead!

"Alberto Gonzales was harassed by the press and democrat lawmakers because he exercised his right to fire subordinate and maybe even insubordinate lawyers on his staff. Special counsel threats and the whole nine yards were tossed about for what seems like daily and forever."

Yeah, but he was a Republican.

He was totally asking for it.

Fast & Furious?

That was an illegal gunrunning program run by Democrats for warring drug cartels in Mexico that killed dozens, including two US agents.

EVERYONE knows being a Republican is MUCH worse than a couple of anti-gun Democrats getting many dozens of people killed to prove - - wait for it - - drug lords warring with each other kill with firearms.

garage mahal said... No, he's a weasel who wanted to deprive Americans of their right to own and carry firearms and tried to do it through unlawful means and is in the process of getting caught.

There really is no conspiracy theory too stupid for conservatives, is there? The question always is: dumb or evil?

There aren't enough gun murders in the U.S. already they could have just pointed to

Let's walk this back and see if you can find a reason. Unlike "gun runner" no attempt was made to track these weapons. Not the FBI, not the DEA and not the BATFE. The only reason we know that these were the guns that were at the crime scenes is that the gun dealers, in order to cover thier asses, kept record of the serial numbers EVEN WHEN THEY WERE TOLD NOT TO BY THE BATF.You tell me. Why in the world would our own government dump THOUSANDS of undocumented firearms accross to boarder into Mexico?Take your time.I'll wait here.

Why is taking it to the courts considered bad? Let it go to the Supreme Court! Let the press explain the 200 Mexicans Obama killed! Let the the press try to explain why this makes the Republicans evil!

Why is taking it to the courts considered bad? Let it go to the Supreme Court! Let the press explain the 200 Mexicans Obama killed! Let the the press try to explain why this makes the Republicans evil!

Eh... who is going to take it through the courts when the AG wants the whole thing to go away? Does anyone have standing besides the family of the agent who was killed?

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

Even if Issa dropped it (which he clearly will not; if nothing else he wants an explanantion for why Holder lied to his committee), the Terry and Zapata families will have their day in court. I suspect that will turn out to be much uglier than the current proceedings, since it can't be conveniently dismissed as a political witch hunt. Those families will be much more sympathetic characters than Issa. And they're even more determined to get answers.

We know for a fact that Holder lied TWICE to the committee. A second "retraction" of a statement he made to the committee (also known as a lie) just came out (that Mukasey knew about it; he even apologized to Mukasey for having said it).

You can keep throwing the Truther charge around, and you can insist this is all much ado about nothing, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I saw Elijah Cummings give a commencement speech at Goucher College. He did a good job - did not seem like a far left librul Dem unlike Gary Trudeau who also spoke.

It is disappointing to see the party line vote- not one Dem could take a stand for a murdered border agent and against a plainly idiotic ATF program that someone must have seen in a movie. The American people are tired of lousy govt that fails in critical situations like 911, F&F, election ballot debacles yet no one gets fired. Hell, that CIA asswipe George tenet, who guaranteed WMD would be found in Iraq, got a medal from GW. WTF is wrong with this picture?

Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.

Steve said..."Just looked at Google news (because their story choice is automated) and Fast and Furious is their number one headline story."

harrogate said,"Yes. That'll last."

Haha, the point is you called it a boutique story when it is actually the number one story on google news. You would have shown more character and class if you had just admitted that you were wrong.

Maybe you could explain why you are OK with flooding Mexico with firearms that were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans? Maybe you could also explain why the administration explicitly tried to make it difficult to trace those guns back to Fast and Furious?

The other lie was last year when he said that DoJ knew nothing of F&F.

I'm trying to follow along. The DOJ obviously became aware of F&F at some point. I've seen nothing that Holder or anyone at the DOJ approved or signed off on gunwalking tactics. 22 witnesses were interviewed by the Committee and none of stated otherwise.

On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][28][29] Those at the meeting did not suggest using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[30] The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced."

Oh, and you libs who want to make light of this. Could you for once keep in mind the reality that a couple HUNDRED mexican citizens have died as a result of this "operation"? That an American Border Patrol Officer was killed with weapons unleashed by Holder's BATF?

Notice how the CNN web article peppers the story with the "party line" vote..

As if that was the story..

When in truth.. it should make the democrats look very bad.. here they are constitutionally duty bound to "oversight" to serve as a check on the executive and they are acting more like the tree blind monkeys.

Why would Obama drag this out unnecessarily when it is embarrassing and hurting his campaign? Maybe it is because he was aware of the Fast and Furious program before it blew up in the media.

My guess it that it will turn out to have been Obama's idea all along. It fits a pattern where as long as constituents aren't getting turned into hamburger by collateral damage (say, Pakistanis, Afghans, Yemenis, etc.) then what's the real political risk here?

It also fits the image of the Imperial President, making the world right by ruthlessness and cunning.

If true, Obama dasn't throw Holder under the bus now, because if he does Holder finds himself holding Obama's nuts as collateral. This will be drawn out as far as it can be drawn.

Ruby Ridge...3 dead, 2 wounded. Those dead include a young boy, and a mother assasinated while doing nothing more than holding her child. Shot in the head because there was a shoot to kill order on site.

Hold him in contempt, then indict him, then make it the feather on Urkel's defeat so that he can be removed from office, which will make human clusterfucks like Rachel Maddow can openly weep and continue making insulting comments that conservatives are some how brain dead, face-eating zombies, that are hard-wired to be utterly and completely stupid. Yes, let's see that happen

I honestly don't get the liberal/ Dem perspective on this-- like garage, leslyn, and harrogate scoffing here.

If there's nothing to this, yawn, then why has Holder been stonewalling over the documents? If there's nothing to this, yawn, why has Obama now invoked executive privilege to back up Holder, personally involving himself as POTUS, leaving himself open to inevitable Nixon comparisons... and forcing the MSM to cover this as a big fucking deal? If there's nothing to this, why not just release the documents for the sake of clarification?

Even if there's no conspiracy and this is just a "botched" operation, it's an operation that has resulted in hundreds of deaths-- does such a botched operation not bear investigation and an assignment of responsibility?

If there's nothing to this, how is Obama's dramatic action to be explained?

There's only one way I see, implausible though it seems, that might explain this if there's nothing to F&F (and/or nothing embarrassing in the subsequent political cover-up), yawn. And that is: Obama is playing some grand political kabuki theater. The precedent would be his refusal to release his birth certificate-- stonewall and stonewall, then release it with great fanfare to ridicule the birthers (like Trump). In this case, the point of the kabuki would be to further his campaign narrative of heroic Obama vs. mean nasty racist partisan Congress, and serve to distract from the abominable economy (and Romney's attacks on that front)... and perhaps other growing scandals, like national security leaks. So is this just another campaign stunt?

But so many things explode this analogy: this is a serious congressional investigation; this is an operation that has resulted in hundreds of deaths with no tangible benefit whatsoever; Obama has invoked executive privilege-- a very weighty move; Holder has already been caught in at least two lies (or falsehoods now "retracted"), etc. The grieving families of at least one dead agent (and hundreds of others) transcend political game-playing. It would be a desperate (and egregious) political gamble, and a scandal for a POTUS to use executive privilege for the sake of a political game. But if O believed that the MSM was on his side and would spin spin spin for him…

Like I said, I find this explanation implausible (though at this point almost nothing from Obama would surprise me-- except competence). But is that how people like garage and harrogate account for the events unfolding before us?

By the way, I don't think Obama can count on the MSM covering his ass in this case. They'll spin for him, sure, some will spin a lot, but they're also sharks who smell blood in the water. The "Watergate" bell has a Pavlovian effect, even if the POTUS is Obama. To put it more nicely, some of them (I hope) still have a microscopic smidge of journalistic integrity... or as Woodward-and-Bernstein fanboys, would want to look like they do.

I don't remember any first term scandals in my lifetime. Nixon had his scandal in the second term. Reagan had a scandal in the second term. Clinton had a scandal in the second term.

Obama is a first term scandal guy. I think that raises a couple of points.

One, Obama is too partisan. He makes enemies right away. For instance, the party-line vote on Obamacare. Not a single Republican on board. When has that happened?

This sort of attitude creates enemies. I totally get it. When you think you're right, and your opponents are wrong, you're going to have enemies. And sometimes you should have enemies. (Lincoln had enemies!)

But it divides people. It becomes us vs. them. Obama has no friends across the aisle, none. (You can't say that about Reagan or FDR).

Presidents have a lot of power. And they're human, which means they're going to screw up. And Fast and the Furious is an obvious screw up. Which is a problem when you've created a bunch of enemies on the other side.

Point #2: Why do we have we have second term scandals? I think it's because Presidents are lame ducks, and they know they won't face the voters again. First term Presidents are on their best behavior because they don't want to be fired.

Obama thinks he's been on his best behavior already. "Tell Putin that I'll have more flexibility after the election."

This is mind-blowing for right-wingers. Obama is on his best behavior now! We won't see bad Obama until his second term! He's literally saving his horrible shit for after 2012. This makes my head spin around.

Top this off with a complicit media that did not treat a genuine scandal like a scandal. People had not heard about Fast and Furious. They didn't know what was going on. This simultaneously made Obama feel complacent while it infuriates the right. I mean, Fast and Furious is clearly a screw-up, a fuck-up, a stupid and idiotic move by the Obama Administration that gave automatic weapons to drug dealers. And the media doesn't think that's a story?

So if you are wondering how we got into a situation where the Attorney General is facing a contempt of Congress charge and there is a pathetic, last minute "privilege" claim to (obviously) attempt to avoid this fate, this happened because Obama is arrogant, Obama is divisive, Obama has no friends on the other side, and Obama does not take people who disagree with him at all seriously. So this crap piles up. And now Obama has a genuine scandal right before the people vote whether to keep him in office or not.

Another thing that's odd about Obama is that Presidents typically remove incompetent people from their administration. If you screw up, you're blamed for your mistake and you're gone.

What's weird is that Obama has not done this. A competent politician would have had a quiet discussion with Holder and he would have announced his resignation without any fanfare. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, all these guys have lots of resignations under them.

It releases tension. It releases steam. Let the other side have a scalp. Take blame, fire somebody, move on.

Obama did not do that. So the issue has not moved on. Apparently the Obama theory is "we make no mistakes and nobody has to resign, ever."

This is mind-blowing for right-wingers. Obama is on his best behavior now! We won't see bad Obama until his second term! He's literally saving his horrible shit for after 2012. This makes my head spin around.

My feeling exactly.

Even if he loses, my stomach sinks a little when I think of what he might do as a lame duck.

This is a case of homicide at the extreme. Or negligent homicide/criminal indifference, at the very least. The Left/Democrats were conducting a long con during the early 2000s. Remember when the Mexican presidents would speak here and always throw out the same lines about 90% of the violent crimes in Mexico involve the use of guns from the US? Then the Dems would go around saying the same thing, even though the experts said it was hogwash. US weapons are too expensive for the Mexican market and there is a constant flood of cheap weapons coming in from Africa--South America---Central America. Sometimes new top line European weapons from African soldiers. Obama, Axelrod and Emanuel took an existing program that tried to monitor gun movement and perverted it by actually sending fully automatic weapons to Mexican drug gangs. They know that it would set off murder sprees in Mexico and that would give Obama and opportunity to create a super-restrictive gun ban in the US as a humanitarian gesture to our neighbors. The UN denies it, but they have been pushing the developed Western nations to disarm its citizens--Australia was one of the most recent examples of that. Perhaps you recall statements by UN officials criticizing the US for dragging its feet on this issue. They said that out of one side of their mouths while denying the existence of such an effort with the other. Obama had been mentioning that he had a plan in the works when speaking in front of left-leaning groups that asked him about the banning guns. This goes all the way to the top and the death toll is currently around 300. Charge them all with murder--negligent homicide. They knew it would happen. They were counting on it.

I do a ton of business in D.C. The open secret is that NOBODY likes the Obamas. He has gone out of his way to alienate the Sally Quinn crowd. He isn't raising money for the House, only for himself. He is failing, and DC hates a loser.

I just wonder if the Dems can maintain their pretense of loyalty for a guy they have learned to detest.

It appears that the President is relying on the deliberative process privilege. The privilege, however, cannot be used to protect documents in the face of wrongdoing. The DC Circuit wrote that the deliberative process privilege is more easily overcome than the presidential communications privilege. It continued: “Moreover, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.” In Re: Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 746 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 1997, No. 96-3124).

The First Circuit agreed. It found that, where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, “the privilege is routinely denied,” on the grounds that shielding internal government deliberations in this context does not serve “the public’s interest in honest, effective government.” Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 60 F.3d 867, 885 (1st Cir. 1995); see also In re Comptroller of the Currency, 967 F.2d at 634 (“the privilege may be overridden where necessary to ‘shed light on alleged government malfeasance.’”)

The Department literally asserted this privilege in the face of Congressional contempt proceedings. It clearly cannot argue that there is no reason to believe that government misconduct occurred. The assertion of the privilege was therefore illegal.

The Attorney General needs to produce the documents pursuant to Congress’s subpoena."

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), an attorney, ex-House Judiciary Committee chairman for six years

I've been thinking about the Watergate/Fast & Furious comparisons and trying to extrapolate how things might work out using the Marx axiom: "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce". Suddenly all the pieces fell into place and it all made sense.

Follow along and you, too, will see the invisible hand of fate that guides these events to their inevitable (and chilling) denouement:

Early in Nixon's second term, the cover-up and Nixon's involvement in the same results in the president's resignation in disgrace. Likewise, the F&F cover-up will ultimately result in Obama's resignation in disgrace (which is now an honorable thing, unless you're a racist.)

With me so far?

Biden assumes the presidency and Barney Frank is confirmed as his VP. The economy continues to founder, inflation (and disco) comes roaring back, Chevy Chase comes out of retirement and begins mocking Biden weekly on SNL, which is suddenly funny again (I know, I know, but work with me, OK?)

Biden runs for re-election in 2016 with Frank as his running, er, mate. But the shadow of the F&F scandal and general ruling party fatigue allows the challenger to ride into victory with promises of "reform" and "real change" and "leadership" that resonate with an electorate yearning for something completely different.

And who is this brave reformer? Who is the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century? Who is the ONE MAN who can save America?

How is the program that ended in 2007 relevant to the one that was ongoing until a whistleblower went public?

Fast and Furious began in the ATF Phoenix Field Division in October 2009

So, you theorize that Holder runs the DoJ so loosely that a rogue branch of the ATF can repeatedly violate federal law, get gun dealers to do the same, and ALSO violate Mexican law in pursuit of an operation that didn't actually follow the guns when they went to cartels?

“In this case, it seems clear that the administration was forced into this position by the committee’s unreasonable insistence on pressing forward with contempt despite the attorney general’s good faith offer.”

A good faith offer? What Holder gave them was basically, "Agree to drop the investigation before I agree to summarize what's in the documents you haven't seen yet."

"If, and I do say IF, the gun walker thing had any use or utility as a method to track where guns go and who has them, it was destroyed when the Obama administration decided and promised to push for gun control legislation in response to US guns in Mexico."

-- It had no viable use, as the guns could not be tracked electronically or in any other way, except by them turning up next to a dead body. Which is one of the many ways it differs from a similar Bush-era program that actually, you know, TRACKED the guns.

Garage believes that Holder is protecting the Bush administration. Garage believs that because this (which he believes is invented by. Glenn Beck) began in 2009 it is (all together now) Bush's fault. Garage has issues with reasoning.

"There aren't enough gun murders in the U.S. already they could have just pointed to?"

-- Violent crime is trending downward, and since most gun murders aren't done by lawful gun owners, those are terrible arguments. I don't believe it was a conspiracy, so much as rank stupidity. Which is also a perfectly valid reason to hold Holder in contempt.

Oh. Garage jumped the shark a long time ago with his Scott Walker conspiracies.Now it's just fun to watch mental contortions of a liberal defending the indefensible.Brian Terry, if he were alive.....well, that's why we're going through all this. People were murdered and every one was preventable.

-- If there weren't a few hundred dead bodies, they could find one. But, no one wants to be on the hook for hundreds of dead bodies.

I think that phrase, hundreds of dead bodies, needs to work its way more in to F&F discussions. Since that's what this is really about. Not executive privilege or gun rights -- hundreds of dead bodies.

Obama is the Adult in the Room, finally putting his foot down telling the Tea Party crybabies that their temper tantrums and silly conspiracy theories are over

Uh-huh:

in February 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ron Welch, in response to the investigations by Rep. Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Fast and Furious gun-"walking" program run out of ATF's Phoenix office, wrote a letter stating that the "allegation that ATF 'sanctioned' or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons ... is false."

Later, Deputy Attorney General Cole, in another letter to Congress, wrote: "Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies."

Don't worry, the political party you vote for depends on your ignorance.

Valerie Jerrett doesn't allow Barack to make big boy decisions himself, so legally (this current EP's legality is dubious based on the "facts" we know), Barack was unable to invoke EP. As you cannot use EP to protect someone who, on paper at least, is an underling, there hasn't been an opportunity to use it thus far.

John Hinderaker:The most frequent form of executive privilege raised in the judicial arena is the deliberative process privilege; it allows the government to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.”

In the Fast and Furious case, the “presidential privilege” clearly does not apply. The administration has said that President Obama had nothing to do with any of the relevant events, and the president says that he learned of the Fast and Furious program “on the news.” And Holder’s letter makes it clear that it is the second type of executive privilege, the “deliberative process privilege,” on which the administration relies:

[The documents under subpoena] were created…in the course of the Department’s deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation. …

"so legally (this current EP's legality is dubious based on the "facts" we know), "

-- My understanding is that executive privilege cannot extend to documents when the investigation is to determine government misconduct; Issa's most recent request solely dealt with the, ah, "inaccuracies," in the DOJ's statements that have since been, ah, "re-truthified."

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers.

"but under the radar"

And yes, what can be done about those firewarms retailers the DOJ set up to violate the law?

Is Hillary buffing her acceptance speech for the convention? She should have it in her purse in case she needs it in September.

The cosmic pendulum might suggest that with all this bad news Obama has been getting in the past couple of weeks, the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare will swing his way. Disturbing though, I realize, but...

That operation ended in 2007 after it was discovered the electronic tracking devices were failing and there was a possibility of losing the guns. Fast and Furious is an entirely different operation, without any real effort to track the guns.

I pointed this out yesterday, but I guess it's just best to ignore facts that get in the way of your preferred story, right?

Great points about Obama. In addition, it should be noted that Obama is a very inexperienced prez who grew up in a lefty, anti American cocoon. The conservative approach is to value the individual while lefties value the collective.

It was inevitable that lefties would invent politically correct speech and thought to tell the collective what to say and what to think. The implication is that when a lefty has to deal with somebody who does not share the hiveset of the collective, the lefty is unable to make a coherent argument defending individual points in the lefty catechism.

Obama is no exception to this, when it comes to explaining his thoughts to non lefties, he's got nothin'. On top of that, Obama is so steeped in the lefty catechism/religion, he sees no need to explain himself to non lefties, hence, the invocation of executive privilege.

When Obama is forced out of the lefty cocoon, he is lost, literally clueless.

You have to wonder at what point lefties on this board will do the right thing, think for themselves, condemn Fast and Furious, and demand a thorough investigation.

Should we expect lefties to ever acknowledge wrongdoing? I think not. The closest lefties ever come to saying that they did something wrong is to say - the right did it first, (which our own special Garage is now saying BTW). But there are more and more independents and it is worth trying to change their minds issue by issue till they reach a tipping point. One issue is jobs; one issue is debt; one issue is the individual mandate; one issue is the Fast and the Furious; one issue is Obama calling Hollywood trash "the ultimate arbiters"; one issue is national security leaks.

Kirk Parker said... Carnifex, it really hurts your case when you get details wrong! Ruby Ridge happened on GHWB's watch, and the initial planning for the Waco raid also occurred before Clinton took office.

And the ATF and FBI was reponsible for the resulting deaths in both cases. What's you point.

Kirk Parker said..."the initial planning for the Waco raid also occurred before Clinton took office."

Link please. Don't know if you are correct about the initial planning (probably not) but how is that relevant? It is certain that the initial plan did not call for slaughtering a bunch of people. The problem was in the "execution" of the Waco raid and the response to that "execution". That was all on the dems.

The problem is not just that corrupt dem pols want to use the power of the state to push us around and cover up when they screw up egregiously but also that the corrupt dem journo-list propagandists cover for the dem pols' chicanery.

This is all exacerbated by the typical dem voter not having the integrity to criticize the dems when the dems screw up (eg: Fast and Furious).

Sorry if I let humor win out over clarity: I find the assertion that the left wants transparency in government to be snortably laughable. Not at all sure whether you meant that statement facetiously or not.

As far as Waco goes:

1. The initial raid, as planned, was evil enough: a completely unnecessary, paramilitary-style assault that was likely to cause fatalities (and whadda ya know, it did!)

2. The initial raid was carried out before Reno was even confirmed as AG.

3. The main personnel involved in the initial raid and its planning were not new hires under Clinton; they were long-term ATF personnel.

Sorry, as much as I abominate the current-day Democratic Party and the politics it stands for, there's plenty of bipartisan blame to go around here.